Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Which is the best country to live?

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • federale86
    replied
    And, you are the one tea.bagg.ing, ho.mo.

    Leave a comment:


  • federale86
    replied
    Proves my point. You are afraid. You talk big, but I don't see you serving. Go back to the hell hole you came from.

    Leave a comment:


  • federale86
    replied
    iperson is certainly a nutjob. WaPo conservative? Insane.

    Buddy, I am on the streets everyday dealing with enemies of the U.S. I strap on a piece and deal with scum everyday.

    You, however, are a coward. Man up p.ussy and get a job on the front line. I just don't think you have the b.alls to draw down on a gan.gbang.er or terrorist.

    Leave a comment:


  • ProudUSC
    replied
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by iperson:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by federale86:
    Brit is wrong as usual. Just read the report by the FBI agent who interrogated Saddam. He wanted everyone to think he had them.

    Please read the LIBERAL Washington Post article:

    WaPo admits Saddam pretended to have WMD.

    Facts, yes FACTS, certainly are hard things to deal with. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Washington Post is not liberal by any stretch of imagination. Their facts are made up, so yes it's hard to deal with them in a sane world of real facts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I hate to disagree, but The Washington Post has always leaned toward the left side of things. They've never been known as a conservative outfit; well, at least as long as I've been around (since the dinosaurs - lol).

    Leave a comment:


  • federale86
    replied
    And, of course, poor ignornant Brit is forgetting that defeating Hitler and Tojo were the first goals of WWII, but we then brought democracy to Germany and Japan.

    So, just why is Brit lying so much to defend Al-Queda, Saddam, and Amadinijahd? Where does Brit's sympathies lie? Obviously not with the USA. Not with democracy. Not with superior Western Civilization. Why does Brit support pederast Muslims, third world dictators, and abusers of women? Why is the Taliban and Venezuela his ideal forms of government? I bet 30 years ago he was appologizing for Yuri Andropov, Joseph Stalin and Ho Chi Minh? I bet he is one of those Trotskyists who are always whining the revolution never came and he did not get to kill all those he worked for and was envious of their wealth and achievement.

    Poor sad self-hating Brit. He will never be happy because he is so greedy, jealous and envious. Then when he dies he will find himself burning in hell for his lack of compassion, faith, and rightousness.

    Leave a comment:


  • SonofMichael
    replied
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by federale86:
    Brit is wrong as usual. Just read the report by the FBI agent who interrogated Saddam. He wanted everyone to think he had them.

    Please read the LIBERAL Washington Post article:

    WaPo admits Saddam pretended to have WMD.

    Facts, yes FACTS, certainly are hard things to deal with. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    kind of sad that Bush could be fooled by such an idiot

    Leave a comment:


  • federale86
    replied
    Brit is wrong as usual. Just read the report by the FBI agent who interrogated Saddam. He wanted everyone to think he had them.

    Please read the LIBERAL Washington Post article:

    WaPo admits Saddam pretended to have WMD.

    Facts, yes FACTS, certainly are hard things to deal with.

    Leave a comment:


  • SonofMichael
    replied
    Bush was the worst stupidest evilist President in US History. Until Obama.

    Leave a comment:


  • Brit4064
    replied
    Yes there was the issue of Weapons of Mass Distraction which supposedly Saddam was about to use any moment....but none were found. Bush claimed he acted on faulty intelligence but I suspect Cheney persuaded him to invade Iraq and use it as a springboard into Iran. Once Saddam was caught and no WMD's were found, it then became "lets bring democracy to Iraq".

    When somebody lies, the story changes over time.

    Leave a comment:


  • federale86
    replied
    Lie, the 9/11 report stated that Saddam supported Ansar Al-Islam and Egyptian Islamic Jihad. It also acknowleded that Iraqi intelligence met directly with Osama Bin-Laden. It is clear that Saddam had an enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend relationship with Al-Queda. They were frenemies.

    Ansar Al-Islam was run by Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, the head of Al-Queda In Iraq.

    Aub Musab Al-Zarqawi

    And Egyptian Islamic Jihad was headed by Ayman Al-Zawahiri, the current second-in-command of Al Queda.

    Ayman Al Zawahiri

    Leave a comment:


  • SonofMichael
    replied
    Germany didn't attack Pearl Harbor but we went to war with them. 9/11 was an attack on America by all muslems. A state of war exists between all muslems and America.

    Leave a comment:


  • ProudUSC
    replied
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It's true we may never know the real reason for war in Iraq but it's a pretty good guess the historians won't be kind to Bush and Cheney. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    The invasion of Afghanistan had everything to do with 9/11, but I thought it was suspicions of WMD which brought about the invasion of Iraq? I know none were found, but wasn't that why we invaded in the first place?

    Leave a comment:


  • Brit4064
    replied
    Yes Proudie, the 911 Commission found there was no direct Al Queda connection with Iraq.

    Davdah, do you always believe what Government tells you? No you don't. You don't like Big Government but apparently quite quick to default in times of war. Even if the war was started on a lie?

    It's true we may never know the real reason for war in Iraq but it's a pretty good guess the historians won't be kind to Bush and Cheney.

    Leave a comment:


  • ProudUSC
    replied
    Nevermind. I think you're talking about the 9/11 Panel's findings that there was no direct al queda connection with Iraq.

    Leave a comment:


  • ProudUSC
    replied
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Aside the issue that Al Queda didn't exist in Iraq </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    How do you know this, Brittie? Al Queda had cells in many countries at the time of 9/11. How do we know they weren't there?

    Leave a comment:

Sorry, you are not authorized to view this page

Home Page

Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Questions/Comments

SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily



Working...
X